KC-46A Info

[Prosuper]

Had to keep 2 KC-10's rapped up like that for months as we proofed the new RVSM upgrades. This what happens when finance guys design airplanes.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Prosuper
content

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Prosuper said:

Had to keep 2 KC-10's rapped up like that for months as we proofed the new RVSM upgrades. This what happens when finance guys design airplanes.

The ones that were at Will Rogers? When I was stationed at Altus I would always see them there while driving to OKC.

[Prosuper]

12 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

The ones that were at Will Rogers? When I was stationed at Altus I would always see them there while driving to OKC.

Correct

[ThreeHoler]

Had to keep 2 KC-10's rapped up like that for months as we proofed the new RVSM upgrades. This what happens when finance guys design airplanes.

Not really “RVSM” upgrades. I’d agree with CNS/ATM upgrades though.

[Gazmo]

They should have paid Boeing to make new KC-135's years ago before the scrapped the tooling. New engines, new APU's, cockpit, etc.

[Right Seat Driver]

They should have paid Boeing to make new KC-135's years ago before the scrapped the tooling. New engines, new APU's, cockpit, etc.

Sad part is the AF had the chance in the early 90s but passed. And then the 767 lease debacle happened a few years later. Now, it is 2018 and the 135 will probably fly until it is 100 years old.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Guardian]

Sad part is the AF had the chance in the early 90s but passed. And then the 767 lease debacle happened a few years later. Now, it is 2018 and the 135 will probably fly until it is 100 years old.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

And still do the mission better than the KC46

[Sua Sponte]

10 hours ago, Right Seat Driver said:

 

Sad part is the AF had the chance in the early 90s but passed. And then the 767 lease debacle happened a few years later. Now, it is 2018 and the 135 will probably fly until it is 100 years old.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

Not with all the corrosion they keep finding.

[Majestik Møøse]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

And still do the mission better than the KC46

The -135 will? Why’s that?

[Guardian]

I was told by a tanker buddy that it carries more fuel and about the same amount of cargo as a 135 and that the KC10 destroys it in both categories.

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

I was told by a tanker buddy that it carries more fuel and about the same amount of cargo as a 135 and that the KC10 destroys it in both categories.

That will happen when you write the requirements to be less than that of the KC-10 on purpose. 

[Majestik Møøse]

While the small fuel tanks are an odd decision (along with no TRs and no boom window), it’ll be a great replacement for the 135. Not really for the 10.

The peanut gallery likes to make fun of big projects that are behind schedule, but the truth is the jet will have some pretty Gucci capes. Not a single 46 driver will ever want to go back to the 135. Unless they suck at receiver AR.

[Day Man]

6 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

The peanut gallery likes to make fun of big projects that are behind schedule, but the truth is the jet will have some pretty Gucci capes. Not a single 46 driver will ever want to go back to the 135. Unless they suck at receiver AR.

Like what?

[Guardian]

While the small fuel tanks are an odd decision (along with no TRs and no boom window), it’ll be a great replacement for the 135. Not really for the 10.
The peanut gallery likes to make fun of big projects that are behind schedule, but the truth is the jet will have some pretty Gucci capes. Not a single 46 driver will ever want to go back to the 135. Unless they suck at receiver AR.

A set of Golden pajamas when cotton has been doing just fine for years. At the expense of the taxpayer. Does the tanker need to evade double digit sams or shoot someone down? Nope. Just pass gas and move stuff. I realize that’s an over simplification. But that doesn’t make it false.

[Champ Kind]

Just pass gas and move stuff. I realize that’s an over simplification. But that doesn’t make it false.

Yes, it is an oversimplification—particularly when we get called to stick it to someone else other than jihadi goaters.

The KC-46 is an absolute shitshow, but I think it’s getting tanker bubbas to realize there’s a big world out there other than just “passing gas and moving stuff.”

I’ve ever flown a tanker and I never will, but I think that community is in need of a major culture change. The dudes I’ve seen try are regarded as heathens.

[mcbush]

Agreed. Like it or not, tanker culture will have to change because threats to the tanker are changing. The line of thinking that tanker or other HVAA dudes will forever be able to operate unfettered in ALR low environments is outdated and doesn’t reflect the reality of threats that are here now or will be very soon.

The -46, for all its flaws, does move the ball forward in some ways. Helping to bring the MAF up on the datalink is one unclass example.

[Majestik Møøse]

2 hours ago, Day Man said:

Like what?

 

59 minutes ago, Guardian said:

A set of Golden pajamas when cotton has been doing just fine for years. At the expense of the taxpayer. Does the tanker need to evade double digit sams or shoot someone down? Nope. Just pass gas and move stuff. I realize that’s an over simplification. But that doesn’t make it false.

Boom, drogue, UARRSI, 3x pallets (18), 2x pax (100), low light refueling, datalink, 787 cockpit, and a defensive system in case your planner screwed up. All that in every jet. And while the choice to carry the same gas as a -135 seems buffoonerous, the 46 will be able to takeoff with that much gas way more often since the thrust to weight is much greater.  Also, it’s not 50 years old, so more of them will take off with more fuel and cargo more reliably.  So there’s the “why”.

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

A set of Golden pajamas when cotton has been doing just fine for years. At the expense of the taxpayer. Does the tanker need to evade double digit sams or shoot someone down? Nope. Just pass gas and move stuff. I realize that’s an over simplification. But that doesn’t make it false.

You don’t need every tanker to carry -10 gas; planes that carry -10 gas are more expensive, so you get less of them. Sometimes you need -135 gas at more places. Get over the fact it can’t carry as much as a -10, it was never supposed to. 

[Orbit]

12 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

 

the 46 will be able to takeoff with that much gas way more often since the thrust to weight is much greater.

The difference is not huge. KC-46 MTOW: 415K vs. 126lbf is about  .3 & the KC-135R MTOW 322K vs. 84lbf is about .26.  I'm the difference becomes more beneficial in hot places.  

Also I thought I heard from someone that they will not really ever be able to use all of those 18 pallet positions for some floor loading reason?

Does anyone know if they are updating those gameboy cameras they installed so the boom can actually see worth a shit?

[ThreeHoler]

Pallet positions are iffy at 18 total because of the formatting height for cargo to fit under the curve. More likely is center load only at 10 (I think).

People complain enough already about the formatting height for the KC-10 and it is much higher.

For the 100 pax thing...that requires the roll-on lab that can’t be serviced without removing the cargo. Or did they fix that?

Not hating on the plane. I think it has good goals. But the problem is the AF is replacing KC-10s with KC-46s. And that will be some serious capes shortages in certain missions. None of those require any of the other things like low light or DS.

I hope it does well but odds are against it right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Majestik Møøse]

18 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

Pallet positions are iffy at 18 total because of the formatting height for cargo to fit under the curve. More likely is center load only at 10 (I think).

People complain enough already about the formatting height for the KC-10 and it is much higher.

For the 100 pax thing...that requires the roll-on lab that can’t be serviced without removing the cargo. Or did they fix that?

Not hating on the plane. I think it has good goals. But the problem is the AF is replacing KC-10s with KC-46s. And that will be some serious capes shortages in certain missions. None of those require any of the other things like low light or DS.

I hope it does well but odds are against it right now.

Absolutely agree. The question I was answering was why do we want the -46 to replace the -135. Replacing the -10 with the -46 is dumb.

[Majestik Møøse]

1 hour ago, Orbit said:

The difference is not huge. KC-46 MTOW: 415K vs. 126lbf is about  .3 & the KC-135R MTOW 322K vs. 84lbf is about .26.  I'm the difference becomes more beneficial in hot places.  

The KC-46 can’t fuel up to max gross; it’s about 20k under with full tanks. According to the internet.

[JimNtexas]

Question from the peanut gallery:

Why replace newer KC-10s rather than older KC-135s?

[Right Seat Driver]

Question from the peanut gallery:
Why replace newer KC-10s rather than older KC-135s?

Complex answer. KC-10 Mx/MR rates are abysmal compared to 135s and the nuke mission.

Side bar: I’d love to see the 135 go on forever as a 135 driver, but she’s got to retire eventually. Still, I do see the value in a 135/10 mixed force scenario. The AF needs to figure out how to replace the 10 in capability. The 46 doesn’t come close.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[ThreeHoler]

Question from the peanut gallery:
Why replace newer KC-10s rather than older KC-135s?

Supply chain logistics. The tail of the KC-10 supply chain is long and expensive to support 59 aircraft versus 400-some KC-135s.

The KC-135 mission set draws more dollars for upgrades, etc.

Rumor: Boeing has been trying to kill the KC-10 for years. Probably not true but fun to say.


Jets are supposed to start disappearing from McGuire sometime next year (depending on delivery of “operational” KC-46s.